conservative heartland on our website, all in.msnbc.com. "the rachel maddow show" starts right now. >> good evening, chris. appreciate it. and thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. on february 25th, 2003, in the united states senate, the army chief of staff at the time was called to testify about whether or not u.s. troops invading iraq might reasonably expect to have weapons of mass destruction used against them on the battlefield by saddam's forces. >> if force is required, move saddam hussein and to dismantle the weapons of mass destruction, we could be confronted with in the early stages of that combat, weapons of mass destruction. and inflicted upon our own forces. i think each of you this morning should touch on the training and your level of confidence in that training and our ability of the troops to carry out their mission. general shinseki, we'll start with you.

>> well, mr. chairman, this is the toughest part -- >> can you raise your voice a bit, please. >> raise my voice a bit? okay. this is the toughest part of our training requirement. >> that's virginia senator john warner, questioning the man who was then the chief of staff of the army, general eric shinseki, who has always been soft spoken to the point of senators having to tell him, talk louder at senate hearings, even when he is talking into a microphone. but what he said that day, in response to the next round of questioning, which came from carl levin at that same year ago, general shinseki may have said it in a soft-spoken voice, but what he said ended up resonating more loudly than almost anyone else in uniform said in any context ahead of the iraq invasion. >> general shinseki, can you give us some ideas to the magnitude of the army's force requirement for an occupation of iraq following a successful completion of the war? >> in specific numbers, i would have to rely on combatant commanders' exactly

requirements, but i think -- >> how about a range? >> i would say that what's been mobilized to this point, something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably a figure that would be required. we're talking about post hostilities, control over a piece of geography that's fairly significant with the kinds of ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems and so it takes a significant ground force presence. >> that was february 25th, 2003, before the u.s. invasion of iraq. general shinseki clearly had not been intending to testify that day on how many troops would be

necessary to responsibly maintain order in iraq after a u.s. invasion, but he was the army chief of staff and when he got asked, his answer was, several hundred thousand u.s. troops. he said that on february 25th. two days later on february 27th, the bush administration destroyed him for it. after all, they were in the midst of selling the american public on the idea of a war in iraq that would be quick, it would be easy, it would be cheap, it would be bloodless. sure, maybe there might be some bruising when the iraqis came out to hug us and kiss us as we arrive, because they wanted us to invade so badly, but other than that, they sold the iraq war as if it posed no real risk. and we certainly wouldn't need hundreds of thousands of americans involved in what they promised would be a quick, perfectly planned, tidy little war. that's what they had in mind. so this was two days after eric shinseki, army chief of staff, said we would need several

hundreds thousands of troops in order to responsibly maintain order in iraq after an invasion. this is how the bush administration responded when he said that. >> i digress for a moment, mr. chairman, from my prepared testimony, because there's been a good deal of comments, some of it quite outlandish, about what our post-war requirements might be in iraq. first, it's hard to conceive that it would make more forces to post stability in post-war iraq, than it would to conduct the war itself. hard to imagine. we can't be sure that the iraqi people will welcome as liberators, although based on what iraqi americans told me in detroit a week ago, many of them, most of them with families in iraq, i am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators and that will help us to keep requirements down. in short, we don't know what the requirement will be, but we can say with vnl confidence that the notion of hundreds of thousands of american troops is way off the mark.

>> "way off the mark." >> that was paul wolfowitz, from the donald rumsfeld led pentagon, explaining how he was pretty sure that we would be greeted as liberators in iraq, because he had checked with iraqis living this detroit. obviously, they are a totally representative sample of iraqis living in iraq. mr. wolfowitz, whose whole beltway brand, remarkably enough, was that he was the smart guy, he was not alone in trying to do that to eric shinseki. that same day, february 27th, 2003, that exact same day, donald rumsfeld himself, the defense secretary, he also came out and shot down what eric shinseki had said would be needed for that invasion. >> the idea that it would take several hundred thousand u.s. forces, i think, is far from the mark. >> so eric shinseki said what he thought was needed in iraq. 48 hours later, he was far off the mark and wildly off the mark. that was an outlandish thing for anyone to say.

he was mocked and basically laughed at, openly, by the bush administration's senior officials, who were gunning for that war. they all said, eric shinseki, this guy, the army chief of staff, obviously he has no idea what he's talking about. and then, not long after, in june of 2003, eric shinseki was gone, retired. basically run out of washington on a rail, neither donald rumsfeld or paul wolfowitz went to his retirement ceremony. this four-star general who was the army chief of staff, they didn't go to his retirement ceremony? no, the message was clear, he was just out and he ought to be seen as a disgrace for that tremendous thing that he estimated that was obviously so -- yeah, and then we invaded iraq and it was a disaster and it went much the way that eric shinseki said it was going to go. and in 2007, four years down the

road in this war that was supposedly going to be a cakewalk, the bush administration finally proposed, dramatically increasing the number of u.s. troops in iraq, and people remembered who had been right about those requirements. this was "the new york times" then. new strategy vindicates ex-army chief shinseki. with a picture of him from that day, back in 2003, showing him about to give that testimony that got him thrown out of washington, with the bush administration trying to humiliate him for what he said. people remembered those many years later, that eric shinseki had been right and the people who ran him out of washington has been very, very, very wrong and very arrogant about it. republican senator lindsey graham went on "fox news sunday" in 2007, four years after that testimony, to tell everybody that he'd always known, he'd

known for years, that eric shinseki was right all along. general shinseki was right. that was 2007, by which time there was a race under way to succeed president bush in office. and when senator obama was president-elect, he let it be known that the man he would be bringing back to washington to run the veterans affairs would be general eric shinseki, the man who was right. he would be bringing him back to washington and putting him in charge of the v.a. >> when i reflect on the sacrifices that have been made by our veterans and i think about how so many veterans around the country are struggling, even more than those who have not served. higher unemployment rates, higher homeless rates, higher substance abuse rates, medical care that is inadequate. it breaks my heart. and i think that general shinseki is exactly the right person whose going to be able to make sure that we honor our troops when they come home. >> "the washington post" that day writing up that announcement about eric shinseki being put in charge of the v.a. by the new incoming democratic president. "the washington post" that day put the iraq experience right up top with the iraq troop numbers debacle in its opening sentence.

saying that the president-elect was, quote, bringing to his cabinet a career military officer, best known for running afoul of the bush administration by questioning the pentagon's iraq war strategy. the overall feeling about appointing eric shinseki to run the v.a., in the opening days of the obama administration, it was not only that eric shinseki was a solid choice for the post, but that it was a vindication that someone whose reputation and career had been unjustly sullied, somebody who had been right when his purse persecutors has been wrong was given the respect he deserved. but in that same article announcing that general shinseki was being put in charge of the v.a., a note of caution was sounded by the executive director of iraq and afghanistan veterans of america. the last line of that piece in "the washington post," back in 2008, was about the immediate problems that general shinseki was going to face when he took charge of the sprawling bureaucracy of veterans affairs. quote, it's an antiquated system

that has been underfunded for years, and it really needs to get into the 21st century so says paul rykoff, director of iraq and afghanistan veterans of america. mr. rykoff will be with us in just a moment. because today, president obama made his first personal remarks on the problems at the v.a. since a firestorm of criticism has erupted over not just delays in veterans receiving care, but in bookkeeping and recordkeeping practices at the v.a. medical centers that may have been designed to hide the problem and lie about the levels of care that were actually being provided. the president said he expects the preliminary reviews to be into him next week. he has dispatched the white house personal chief of staff to personally investigate the matter, not only at the v.a. system where the problems first arrived uh but system wide. he expect as that review next month. he also said that he would take

some immediate action today, although we're not quite sure what exactly he meant, the president today said he told general shinseki that veterans who are currently waiting for appointments, they should be reached out to immediately to make sure they are getting better service. the president said in his remarks today, quote, that is something that we can initiate right now. we spent the afternoon today checking with both the white house and the v.a. to see exactly what the president was talking about there, in terms of some new form of immediate action for veterans who are waiting for appointments right now. we do not yet know what it is he meant specifically. we will let you know when we know. but the response to the president's remarks today from republicans was loud and coordinated and almost uniform in its insistence that at least part of the response to this

problem, if not the most important response to this problem, should be that eric shinseki should be fired. that it is time to run him out of washington on a rail for a second time. the president today, in his remarks, and in his previous responses to this scandal thus far, he has not seem inclined to fire general shinseki, and given recent history with general shinseki in washington, maybe that is understandable. eric shinseki is one guy, who if you're going to fire him, you better be sure. whether or not the president does end up asking for the resignation or firing of eric shinseki, not even the people who are clamoring for him to go, not even the people who are clamoring for the president to fire general shinseki say they believe that that would solve the problem at the v.a.. i mean, whether or not you want cerak shinseki to keep his job, what would it take to fix the problem? since president obama has been

in office, the v.a.'s budget has gone from $100 billion in 2009 to more than $150 billion this year. more than a 50% increase. the number of veterans who are eligible to get their health care from the v.a. has also increased by huge numbers during the obama administration. disability claims with the v.a. were about $400,000 in 2009, president obama's first year in office. by 2012, they were, look, more than 900,000. and the v.a. did not keep pace with that huge rise in claims. as the number of claims can rose, the backlog of veterans waiting unconscionable amounts of times to hear about those claims also rose, into the hundreds of thousands. and the hue and cry over that giant backlog of veterans waiting to hear about their claims, that led to a major effort during this obama administration to try to get rid of the backlog. now they say they have cut the backlog on claims by more than half.

they say they're on pace to eliminate the claims backlog by next year, which was the v.a.'s goal about that backlog, but, you know what, there are fears and there is some evidence that the reduction in the backlog is only a paper result. that they figured out a way to make the statistics look better, even while veterans are still waiting too long to hear about their claims. and it is the same thing for the wait times that veterans expect when they're trying to get v.a. health care appointments. veterans have been waiting too long. forever, they have been waiting too long. but in the extra-overwhelmed v.a. health system of today, the wait times became so politically unacceptable, that v.a. decided to crack down on it. they set a systemwide goal that no veteran would wait more than 14 days to get an appointment. and they had the same problem of meeting those goals or steaming fast towards those goals on paper, but it turns out they were only paper results. they weren't making real progress, they just made it look like they were making progress. this is not the first time this kind of thing has happened. in 2012, the inspector general claim kd bullpucky on the claim that 95% of patients were getting mental health treatment within 14 days. that looks great, 95%. but the inspector general looked into it and said that 95% figure is totally bogus.

it's nowhere near 95% of veterans getting mental health treatment within 14 days. it's maybe more like 64%, but we can't really tell. they said, listen, the data that they're generating out of the v.a. to produce these super rosy numbers that makes it look like they're making so much progress, that data is a croc. this is what the inspector general said two years ago. the v.a.'s mental health data is not accurate or reliable. in other words, don't believe the hype when they tell you their statistics show that they're getting much better. the allegations now that the president commented on today, that have resulted in the calls for eric shinseki's head, they're a new iteration of the same problem. paper results. paper results. wait time results that look great for the people whose job it is to aggregate the statistics, but they don't reflect reality. and those fake statistics obscure real and bad waiting times that are not getting fixed. they're just getting papered over. there is a modern american dysmorphia when it comes to

veterans. we see things that aren't really there. we tell ourselves that we're doing things that we're not really doing. we have a poetry in this country about our love and respect for veterans that is not matched by the prose of how veterans are actually treated. i mean, we hit peak magnetic yellow ribbon on your suv time in this country in march 2003, which is the month when we did start the invasion of iraq. and in march of 2003, the same month the invasion started, the house of representatives passed a budget that month to cut $14 billion out of veterans health care. the same month, wrap it up in a yellow ribbon. in 2005, two years into the iraq war, as it was becoming clear that this was far bloodier and it was going to take far longer than anyone had warned us, except for maybe eric shinseki, the v.a. secretary at the time in 2005 insisted that the v.a. had plenty of money, plenty of

resources, didn't need anything additional from congress, and that was weird, because there were starting to be local and then national news reports about v.a. facilities having to freeze hiring, having to delay purchases, because they were running out of money. but in washington, they insisted, the v.a. had everything they needed. they didn't need anything extra. right up until the moment that the congress actually had to appropriate $1.5 billion in emergency, supplemental funds to shore up a v.a. that actually really was falling apart and totally underfunded, even though they were saying overtly that everything was fine. before all of that, before the iraq war, in the previous presidency, under bill clinton, in the year 2000, he signed something called the veterans claims assistance act, which was supposed to make it easier for veterans to get their claims for v.a. health care approved. it was a well-meaning bill, designed to smooth out the process, make the claims process faster, make it less confusing for veterans and their families. it ended up instead doing exactly the opposite. it added several layers of

bureaucracy to the v.a. claims process, made it more opaque than ever. it slowed down an already slow and clunky system. they passed that law in 19 -- they passed that law because of these numbers that they were upset about. by 1999, this is how long it was taking to process claims. 166 days. they thought that was way too slow. so they responded to that, and they passed that new law to speed it up. want to know what that new law did? look, within two years, it was taking 224 days to process the claims. in 2010, it was viewed as, and in many ways, it was, a huge victory for veterans when congress and the obama administration agreed to add huge numbers of veterans to those who are eligible for v.a. care. they made it easier to place a disability claim for post-traumatic stress. they made it easier for

thousands of vietnam veterans to qualify for v.a. care, due to exposure to agent orange. and both of those measures were long overdue. and those veterans, who would argue that those veterans shouldn't get care from the v.a.? posttraumatic stress and exposure to agent orange are obviously very, very service-connected issues. but even the bolstered, better-funded v.a. system of the last few years has proved itself to be no match for the influx of claims that resulted from those well-meaning expansions. is this, at heart, a resource problem? i mean, as recently as february, a bill that would have created more than two dozen new v.a. mental centers and expanded others, that bill was filibustered in the senate. 41 republicans voted against it, saying it was too expensive. these are the same republicans who are now calling for eric shinseki's head, and saying it's an outrage the way the v.a. can't upscale to meet the needs of today's veterans. is this a resource problem? are we just a country that dysmorphically cannot see the magnitude of the financial and governmental resources that it will take to keep our

accomplishments to this country's millions of veterans? have we just been writing checks with policy that we are not willing to cash when the bill comes due? are we chronically underfunding the promises that we are making to our veterans. or has funding the v.a., the more than 50% increase in v.a. funding during this presidency, has that been throwing good money after bad, in a system that's too big to function as well as we need it to, and that gets worse before it gets better every time it tries to reform. the system today has brought things to a crisis point, where the president personally had to address it. but the system that is broken today was broken a long time before today, and it was known to be broken a long time before today. there is a political maelstorm about this now, but it is not new. what would it take to actually get this fixed? what does it mean to have an unlimited mileage warranty on a certified pre-owned mercedes-benz? what does it mean to drive as far as you want... for up to three years and be covered? it means your odometer...

is there to record the memories. during the mercedes-benz certified pre-owned sales event now through june 2nd, you'll get complimentary pre-paid maintenance and may qualify for a two-month payment credit. only at your authorized mercedes-benz dealer. but add brand new belongings from nationwide insurance... ...and we'll replace destroyed or stolen items with brand-new versions. we take care of the heat, so you don't get burned. just another way we put members first, because we don't have shareholders. join the nation. ♪ nationwide is on your side ♪

beautiful day in baltimore where most people probably know that geico could save them money on car insurance, right? you see the thing is geico, well, could help them save on boat insurance too. hey! okay...i'm ready to come in now.

hello? i'm trying my best. seriously, i'm...i'm serious. request to come ashore. geico. saving people money on more than just car insurance. when i reflect on the sacrifices that have been made by our veterans and i think about how so many veterans around the country are struggling, even more than those who have not served, higher unemployment rates, higher homeless rates, higher substance abuse rates, medical care that is inadequate. it breaks my heart. and i think that general shinseki is exactly the right person who's going to be able to make sure that we honor our troops when day come home. across the board, he has put his heart and soul into this thing, and he has taken it very seriously. but i have said to rick, and i said it to him today, i want to

see, you know, what the results of these reports are, and there is going to be accountability. >> speaking about general eric shinseki back in 2008, when he was still president-elect, and then president obama speaking about him again today. joining us now is paul rykoff, he's founder and ceo of i of v.a., great to see you. >> my pleasure, rachel. thank you for the lesson. you were in professor mode and i think the country needs to understand that this is not new. it was appreciated to see it gone into that thoroughly? >> oh, thank you. you and i have talked about previous iterations of this problem. and you have been screaming bloody murder about previous iterations of this problem and this problem over the last, literally over the last ten years, when it was operation truth. at this point, do you feel like you've seen enough iterations of it that you know what it would take to fix it? >> well, i like to think so, but

i think it continues to evolve and morph. what we do see is that history keeps repeating itself. the v.a. has struggled with these problems for a decade, but especially in the last six years. i've been coming on your show every couple of months for the last six years to talk about problems at the v.a. it's bad news and bad problems handled badly by the v.a. and by the white house. the president finally responded today, but this controversy broke four weeks ago. what took them so long and how far does this go? it's up with thing after another, and the dam is finally broken, the country has finally woken up, and i hope that our veterans will finally see some real action. >> when you look at the way the v.a. has been treated by this administration overall, obviously, as you say, you feel like history is repeating itself, particularly over the last six years. you've talked about how the bush administration didn't plan for

the wars it started and the obama administration hasn't planned well enough for the ending of those wars. but we've also seen the v.a. budget go from $100 billion to $150 plus billion. why hasn't extra money meant better care? >> that's the question we've got to ask of secretary shinseki right now. he's been asking for the money that he needs and congress has pushed for the money he said he needed. so it really comes down to accountability. this scandal is so much bigger than phoenix. it's now over ten cities, from ft. collins to cheyenne to st. louis, new cities appear every three days or so. whistle-blowers continue to come out. now the v.a. of the inspector general himself said they were going to investigate 26 inadvertence facilities around the country. it doesn't seem to be an issue of money. we do need to make sure we keep the pedal down and continue to fund the v.a., especially as afghanistan winds down at the end of this year, but it's really about leadership and accountability. secretary shinseki has lost the trust of our veterans. he's lost the trust of the media and lost the trust of the american people.

and he'll have to work really hard, really fast to get it back. >> paul, i know that the american legion has called explicitly for general shinseki to be fired, for him to resign over the failure to fix these problems. as far as i know, iava hasn't said that organizationally yet. it sounds like you just got kind of close. what are your personal feelings on that and where does iava come down on that? how important is he individually? >> he's very important. he sets the tone, sets the command climate. he has to be the advocate in chief on behalf of our veterans. there's an old saying that sometimes the v.a. stands for veterans advocate, and sometimes it stands for veterans adversary. he's got to be the biggest veterans advocate in america and he hasn't really met that challenge. for us, we're asking our members. we're going to continue to poll, memorial day is coming up, we want to hear from our all of our members and make sure we're thoughtful about this decision and take it seriously. but our members are furious. they're outraged and absolutely disgusted by this entire controversy and were very disappointed with the president he did not lay out any clear

action steps and he was late to this issue. it's sad that it takes them getting hit over the head by the media for weeks and weeks and then when they response, it's a weak sons with no real plan. they've got to get ahead of this story and understand it's deep, it's vast, and not going away anytime soon, because it hasn't gone away in the past six years. >> let me just ask you about that last point. that is, i feel like part of the reason that this has been a weird story to cover over the last four weeks, we've covered ate number of times on this show, i feel like so much of the "this is a scandal" coverage is covering it as if this is a totally new problem. i feel as if, yes, we've uncovered a new way that we're doing this, just like we were doing this with mental health numbers, like we were doing with this the with backlog, like we were doing it before. it feels to me like it's the media coming upon a problem in progress and calling it a scandal, rather than something brand-new being uncovered. i mean, how do you handle that? i know you know this isn't through. >> it's a wake-up call. honestly, i thought this was going to happen years ago. people are complaining this has been politicized in the last couple of weeks. it's a miracle it wasn't politicized four years ago. this stuff has been out there,

there have been multiple hearings and ig reports and gao studies. america just wasn't paying attention and the media wasn't paying attention. you've been very aggressive and consistent in covering it, but the reality is that most of america and most of the media has not been. so welcome to the discussion, america. it's really a big problem, we need everyone's help, and it's one of the most urgent, political issues facing our country. if we can't get veterans right, we can't get anything right in this country. it does offer a unique, bipartisan opportunity to finally tackle something that matters. and it's just really, i think, disappointing and disheartening for everyone. we're exhausted by it, but maybe the silver lining is that we can finally get the reform that we deserved a decade ago. >> paul rieckhoff, thank you for coming back to talk about this. i know you've been working triple time on this. i really appreciate it, man. >> anytime. it's our job, rachel. >> thanks, we'll be right back. stay with us. avo: with expedia

you always get the lowest price book any flight or hotel and if you find it for less we'll match it and give you fifty dollars back that's the expedia guarantee

this is mike. his long race day starts with back pain... ...and a choice. take 4 advil in a day which is 2 aleve... ...for all day relief. "start your engines" all stations come over to mithis is for real this time. step seven point two one two. verify and lock. command is locked. five seconds. three, two, one. standing by for capture. the most innovative software on the planet... dragon is captured. is connecting today's leading companies to places beyond it. siemens. answers. [ male announcer ] now get more of what you deserve. visit your local benjamin moore dealer today and get $50 off every $250 purchase.

[ male announcer ] to celebrate, visit your local benjamin moore dealer today and get $50 off every $250 purchase. there's still a lot to come tonight, including an important bit of news about msnbc that you may not have heard. i'm going to have that for you in just a minute. it's really, really good news.

and the democratic party today came to a decision that they have been fighting about internally for weeks. and lots of democrats all over the ideological spectrum have been on either side of this argument. it's been impossible to figure out which way they're going to go. it's a real hard, strategic decision. and today the democrats took a leap in exactly the opposite direction from what i thought they'd do. my powers of prediction triumph again. that surprising story, surprising to me, at least, that story is next. (music) defiance is in our bones. defiance never grows old. citracal maximum.

calcium citrate plus d. highly soluble, easily absorbed. but they don't yet know we're a family. we're right where you need us. at the next job, next adventure or at the next exit helping you explore super destinations and do everything under the sun. 12 brands. more hotels than anyone else in the world. so wherever you want to be, whatever you want to do, chances are we're already there. save up to 25% and earn bonus points when you book at wyndhamrewards.com. and the award goes to ceramics house. congratulations. thank you. the success of your small business depends on results. go vests! all organic, and there's tons of info on our website. that's why you rely on the best for your business. and verizon delivers the best devices on the best network. you're all big toes to me. so go ahead, stream and download with confidence on america's largest, most reliable 4glte network. activate any 4glte smartphone and get $100 off.

for best results, use verizon. i missed you, too.ou. hi buddy. mom! awesome! dad!! i missed you. ♪ oh... daddy. chevrolet and its dealers proudly support military appreciation month. with the industry's best military purchase program, for all that have served. afghanistan, in 2009. orbiting the moon in 1971. [ male announcer ] once it's earned, usaa auto insurance is often handed down from generation to generation. because it offers a superior level of protection. and because usaa's commitment to serve current and former military members and their families is without equal. begin your legacy. get an auto insurance quote. usaa.

we know what it means to serve. ugh. heartburn. did someone say burn? try alka seltzer reliefchews. they work just as fast and taste better than tums smoothies assorted fruit. mmm. amazing. yeah, i get that a lot. alka seltzer heartburn reliefchews. enjoy the relief. when you're in the minority in congress and the majority in congress wants to do something that you find objectionable, you have a couple of choices. you can make a point of staying out of it, and in that strategy, you stand on principle and you try to embarrass the majority in a kind of silent protest. democrats used that approach in 2005 when the then-ruling republicans launched a committee to investigate the bush administration's failed handling of hurricane katrina. democrats wanted a nonpartisan,

independent commission, a la the 9/11 commission. but when republicans said no, democrats boycotted what the m ares were doing. they refused to join in. and that republicans-only committee produced a report that contained all of two sentences on how president bush maybe, maybe could have responded a little better to hurricane katrina. and when republicans reached that laughably partisan conclusion, democrats had the advantage of not having been dragged into it. they never signed on to that. and so, basically, they won a round. and everybody laughed off that report and it disappeared as the republicans' effort to whitewash their own party's failures. that's strategy number one, the boycott strategy. strategy number two, i like to think of as the elijah cummings strategy. this is the one where you decide to show up, knowing that you have no real power in the room, other than give the other side a chance to make themselves look terrible. and when it works, it works like this. >> ladies and gentlemen, seeking the truth is the obligation of this committee. i can see no point in going further.

i have no expectation that miss learner will cooperate with this we and therefore, we -- >> chairman, chairman, i have a statement. i have a procedural question, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i have a procedural question. mr. chairman, you cannot run a committee like this. you just cannot do this? we're better than that as a country, we're better than that as a committee. i have asked for a few minutes to -- now you're turning me off. >> meeting adjourned. >> i don't care. the fact is that i asking a question. i am the ranking member of this committee and i want to ask a question. for the past year, the central republican accusation in this investigation -- >> we're adjourned. close it down. >> -- collusion directed by one on behalf of the white house. before our committee reviewed a single document -- >> thank you. >> where is the question? >> if you will sit down and allow me to ask the question, i am a member of the congress of

the united states of america. i am tired of this! >> well. >> we have members over here, each who represent 700,000 people. you cannot just have a one-sided investigation. there is absolutely something wrong with that and this is absolutely un-american. >> elijah cummings gave darryl issa the chance to look terrible and congressman issa took full advantage. had elijah cummings not been there in the room to object to what was going on, that would have just been the darryl issa show. but because congressman cummings was in the room to object, that was the most memorable thing anybody knows about darryl issa. so, two strategies. two very different strategies used by democrats when they have been out of power in congress. and this month, democrats have been debating which of anesthesia strategies to use on a new question. because house republicans have launched a new select committee to investigate the attacks in

benghazi, which killed four americans, including our ambassador to that country, our ambassador to libya, in september 2012. democratic leader nancy pelosi has been consulting with ranking democrats on other committees and other democrats involved in making decisions in the democratic caucus. she's been talking to the other leadership in the democratic party. they've been having an internal debate. and right up until today, it seemed like they were leaning against going along this committee. for example, here's congressman adam schiff of california. this is fascinating. >> you have said that the benghazi, and you put it, conspiracy theories, are a terrible distraction from the real issue, which is bringing the people who killed these four americans to justice. is this house committee part of that distraction? and how certain are you that democrats will participate and put, since it's a select bipartisan committee, will put

members on the committee? >> chris, i think it's a colossal waste of time. we've had four bipartisan investigations of this already. i don't think it makes sense, really, for democrats to participate. i think it's just a tremendous red herring and a waste of taxpayer resources. >> in this internal debate that democrats have been having, congressman schiff has been on the side that said, boycott the republicans' benghazi committee. call the committee what we think it is, which is a circus and a stunt and a waste of time. congressman schiff speaking out for the boycott strategy over the elijah cumming strategy. and while that debate played out inside the democratic party, the democrats have also been negotiating with house speaker john boehner about what the committee's going to be like and how it's going to function. today nancy pelosi announced that those talks with the speaker were over and that democrats had made a decision about what to do. and i have to say, i did not see this coming. not like this. >> over the past two weeks, we have engaged in good faith discussions with speaker boehner on the shape and standards of the select committee. we had hoped for a level of fairness and transparency and balance, especially considering the subject matter.

we were not able to reach any agreement. regrettably, the republican approach does not prevent the unacceptable and repeated abuses committed by chairman issa in any meaningful way. that is all the more reason for democrats to participate in the committee, to be there to fight for fair hearing and process, to try to bring some openness and transparency to what's going on. >> i thought she was going somewhere else at the beginning, but nancy pelosi said today that the democrats have finished negotiating with republicans about this committee, about how to make it more balanced, more fair. the democrats got nothing out of those negotiations.

she said the committee is going to be totally unfair, and she said, that is all the more reason that democrats should participate in it. because being there, she said, is how they tend to prove that the committee is an unfair, biased disaster. but if the first big surprise is that nancy pelosi said that her party got nothing, it's totally unfair, so let's join it, take a look at the democrat she picked to occupy the democrats' five seats on the committee. elijah cumming gets one of the seats. so the author of the elijah cumming strategy will himself be on the panel, but so will the guy who articulated the boycott strategy on fox news, adam schiff, the same california congressman who not only argued that democrats should not go along with this, but made that

argument on fox news. congressman adam schiff is going to be one of the five democrats on this same select committee that he argued democrats should boycott. this has been a mr. toad's wild ride on this subject. nobody saw any of this coming, most of all, me. what happened here? joining us now is congressman adam schiff from california, one of the five democrats elected to serve on the benghazi select committee. he's also a senior member of the house intelligence committee. congressman schiff, thank you so much for being here. >> you bet. >> so you've been vocal, multiple times, about your opposition to democrats participating in this select committee, and now you are going to be on the committee. how do those two things co-exist? >> well, i think what you've seen is, we did have that difficult debate that you mentioned and the caucus was deeply divided, but at the end of the day, we coalesced around the agreement and the strategy that the leader has adopted. and the fact that both elia and i were serving on that committee is proof of the fact that we're unified.

we're now unified in the approach we're going to take going forward. and i think part of the reason, rachel, is this. my concern about the select committee is this is where i think they're headed. they are going to subpoena everything under the sun, subpoena something having no relation whatsoever to benghazi, subpoena things clearly protected by privilege, and they're going to keep asking, because they want to provoke a fight with the administration. they're not interested in the facts, which we really already have. they're interested in the fight with the administration. and ultimately, our leadership concluded that it was important to have people in the room to contest the abuse of that kind of power and process. and i think that's a sensible decision, no matter how divided our caucus was initially, we have come together and we're going to deal with this professionally and responsibly and try to prevent the select committee from degenerating into simply one about talking points. >> are you convinced that you will have the access to information and the tools that you need, as minority members of that committee, to contest what you are anticipating there? are you going to have access to information about witnesses, information about what they're subpoenaing, information about what the committee itself is doing, enough to be able to play the role that you just described? >> well, we're certainly going

to try. there's no guarantees, and in fact, we couldn't even get commitments from the speaker to make sure that we would be present when witnesses were interviewed, that we would have any say in the subpoenas being issued. but you can expect if we are denied that kind of due process in this select committee, that we are going to be very vocal about it and we're going to scream bloody murder about that and we're going to let the american people know that this is a sham. now, they keep representing that they want this to be a serious undertaking, but my suspicion again is that they simply want to draw out a fight with the administration until election day and happily raise money all along the way. and if that's the course they choose, they can expect us to fight them tooth and nail. >> do you see any indications, contrary to that, among your republican colleagues who have been chosen to be on the committee? i find it interesting that as far as i know, and i may be wrong about this, but i think that all of the seven republicans who are going to be on the committee are all attorneys. on the democratic side, everybody's an attorney with the exception of congresswoman tammy duckworth, who is a combat-wounded iraq veteran and no slouch when it comes to

arguing on any subject. do you see any indication from your colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this might be something in which they'd be willing to work with you in a collegial way? any sort of outreach or branch since you were announced as a member of the committee that maybe your fears here were unfounded? >> i wish i could say that was the case. that is certainly the case within the broader republican conference. you have a lot of republican members who will nell you privately, look, we think this is a bad idea. we've gone over this ground, and in fact, some have said it very publicly. the chairman of the armed services committee said, look, we've gone over and over this, and at some point you've got to say, when is enough enough? so the more moderate responsible gop members will say that privately, they are not necessarily the same people that were picked to be on the select committee, which was really a way of throwing a bone to the conservative wing of the republican conference. so, look, who can say for sure, but i think the whole reason of forming this select committee was not getting at the truth, but rather to play case the base, to fundraise off the base, to motivate the base to turn out at election time, because all the questions that our new chairman of this select committee has said he wants answers have, in fact, already

been asked and already been answered. >> congressman adam schiff of california, providing actually background and information about how this decision was made that i haven't heard anywhere else. that's very helpful in understanding what you're doing, but also giving us a taste of what these fights are going to be like from here on out. thanks for helping us understand, sir. appreciate it. >> you bet. >> a lot more still to come tonight. stay with us. for my frequent heartburn. because you can't beat zero heartburn. woo hoo! [ male announcer ] prilosec otc is the number one doctor recommended frequent heartburn medicine for 8 straight years. one pill each morning. 24 hours. zero heartburn.

fresfx: car unlock beep.ine for 8 straight years. vo: david's heart attack didn't come with a warning. today his doctor has him on a bayer aspirin regimen to help reduce the risk of another one. if you've had a heart attack be sure to talk to your doctor before you begin an aspirin regimen. hammer that in. nice. wrench? what? aflac! so this is who you brought to help us out? oh yeah, he's the best. he doesn't look like he's seen a tool in his life. oh, he doesn't know anything about tools. aflac-ac-ac-ac-ac-ac-ac! but when i broke my arm, he lent a hand. he paid my claim in just four days. four days? wow! find out how fast aflac can pay you at aflac.com.

better. could mean less waiting for things like security backups and file downloads you'd take that test, right? well, what are you waiting for? you could literally be done with the test by now. now you could have done it twice. this is awkward. check your speed. see how fast your internet can be. switch now and add voice and tv for $34.90. comcast business built for business.

>> there is breaking news from the united states supreme court. yet another last minute dramatic development related to an execution that was scheduled to happen today in missouri. the ruling from the supreme court today, actually puts a stop to the third straight execution that was planned since a botched lethal injection in oklahoma three weeks ago. what happened in oklahoma three weeks ago was set to be an execution as normal it went horribly wrong. local authorities actually tried to stop that execution while it was under way. there is no word as to whether they actually tried to revive that man after they tried to stop the execution. he eventually died of a heart attack, 43 minutes after the execution started. again that was three weeks ago in oklahoma. and since then, there has not been another execution in the united states. a second one was planned in oklahoma that night. that one was delayed. another one was planned in another state there after. that one was also delayed.

in the last 24 hours, there has been an on again off again on again off again, off again, development in the case of missouri. missouri had a death warrant to kill a prisoner sometime today. starting between midnight local time, this past night and midnight local time tonight. but the state of missouri appealed efforts through the 8th circuit court of appeals and ultimate low to the united states supreme court tonight both trying to get that death warrant served as the man's lawyers tried to get that death warrant blocked. but the supreme court has ruled today to halt that execution indefinitely. they have referred the case back to the 8th circuit court of appeals. right up until the last moment until the supreme court ruled it was not at all clear whether or not the execution would go forward. as of now it is on ice. that means there has not been an execution since what happened in oklahoma. we will have to do research. three in a row have been blocked legally. watch this space. programming note. passion...

became your business. at&t can help simplify how you manage it. so you can focus on what you love most. when everyone and everything works together, business just sings. i'm saving a ton of time by posting them to my wall. oh, i like that one. it's so quick! it's just like my car insurance. i saved 15% in just 15 minutes. i saved more than that in half the time.

i unfriend you. that's not how it works. that's not how any of this works. [ male announcer ] 15 minutes for a quote isn't how it works anymore. with esurance, 7 1/2 minutes could save you on car insurance. welcome to the modern world. esurance. backed by allstate. click or call. captain: and here's a tip.orld. bellman: thanks, captain obvious. when you save money on hotel rooms, it's just like saving money on anything else that costs money. like shoes, textiles, foreign investments, spatulas, bounty hunters, javelins...

my she's awesome.st, when i go in there, i want to be awesome too. so i've totally gone pro with crest pro-health. go pro with crest pro-health. the first time i tried crest pro-health it felt different, i mean it felt clean. crest pro-health protects all these areas dentists check most. she's going to do backflips when she sees this. 4 out of 5 dentists confirmed these pro-health products helped maintain a professional clean. i am extremely impressed. i guess that's what happens when you go pro. go pro with crest pro-health. excuse me, did you say you want to see my teeth, oh i'm sorry.

ugh. heartburn. did someone say burn? try alka seltzer reliefchews. they work just as fast and taste better than tums smoothies assorted fruit. mmm. amazing. yeah, i get that a lot. alka seltzer heartburn reliefchews. enjoy the relief. programming note. many of you know the anchor here on msnbc, an nbc correspondent and reporter for many years. chris is one of my personal role models. there is nobody better than her in this generation of reporters at handling news as it happens. you have seen it in her on-the-scene reporting all over the country, seen it on her show at msnbc, 10:00 a.m. eastern and see it in the big promotion to be nbc news senior white house correspondent. as a woman in this business and some one who admires her, a really cool thing for me to see her get the senior white house correspondent gig at nbc. and also, it is very cool to be able to tell you that the person who is going to be arriving at msnbc to do the show at 10:00 a.m. eastern is jose diaz ballart, a force of nature.

you have seen him on the show. you are likely to see him on telemundo, the anchor of two flag ship programs, one of the most watched, recognized anchors in america. he will continue in the role on telemundo. and its competitor univision have huge audiences in the country. basically seen as totally separate from the media because they serve an hispanic audience. doesn't need to be that way. shouldn't be that way. with jose diaz ballart coming to work at msnbc, a world class excellent anchor and starteding to bridge the gap between the msnbc and telemundo audience. if you are an msnbc viewer and care about the balance of media in this country and us versus fox and all that media biz stuff, i have to tell you this is a really big deal for this business and us as a company. in news terms, the equivalent of us just scoring the number one nfl draft pick in the country. it is great news. we are all, really, really excited. on that note, it is time for

"the last word." thank you for being with us. what are house republicans up to on benghazi? tonight, i'll ask one. breaking news from capitol hill. >> house minority leader nancy pelosi announced. >> democrats will participate in a house select committee on benghazi. >> after more than two weeks of considering a potential boycott. >> who will the democrats be? >> heavy hitters. >> elijah cummings. >> he has a lot of experience in checking republicans. >> adam smith. >> some one knows the issue >> this is a deal for nancy pelosi.